MODS ARE MISSING: LET'S MAKE SOME MORE! by SpaceHeeder in DebateAnarchism

[–]SJWasFuCk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

felt dumber for reading that

MODS ARE MISSING: LET'S MAKE SOME MORE! by SpaceHeeder in DebateAnarchism

[–]pseudojewboy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay nazbol back off to your cave now.

MODS ARE MISSING: LET'S MAKE SOME MORE! by SpaceHeeder in DebateAnarchism

[–]zxz242 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well-deserved.

MODS ARE MISSING: LET'S MAKE SOME MORE! by SpaceHeeder in DebateAnarchism

[–]Voltairinede 0 points1 point  (0 children)

can't stop me fam

MODS ARE MISSING: LET'S MAKE SOME MORE! by SpaceHeeder in DebateAnarchism

[–]zxz242 0 points1 point  (0 children)

More shitposts? Don't decrease the quality of this sub, thanks.

MODS ARE MISSING: LET'S MAKE SOME MORE! by SpaceHeeder in DebateAnarchism

[–]zxz242 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whatever it is you have, keep it off the internet.

MODS ARE MISSING: LET'S MAKE SOME MORE! by SpaceHeeder in DebateAnarchism

[–]zxz242 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is you. You have a tendency to overreact to everything, and are heavily prone to confirmation biases.

MODS ARE MISSING: LET'S MAKE SOME MORE! by SpaceHeeder in DebateAnarchism

[–]zxz242 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Aren't you that girl with borderline personality disorder?

MODS ARE MISSING: LET'S MAKE SOME MORE! by SpaceHeeder in DebateAnarchism

[–]Voltairinede 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Oppose Fascist prick

Should I vote for Bernie or Hillary? by [deleted] in DebateAnarchism

[–]kajimeiko -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Deuces ~~

Should I vote for Bernie or Hillary? by [deleted] in DebateAnarchism

[–]ronperlmansbeard -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Lol

should class come first? by -Blackarmy- in DebateAnarchism

[–]daReaper88 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Kk bb. Your rhetoric makes you sound fruiter than a bowl of fruit loops for Christ's sake.

Animal liberation and anarchism by sra3fk in DebateAnarchism

[–]tabletop4life 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I forgot that I was not on a subreddit dedicated to debate and discussion. Thank you for reminding me.

The regressive left! by -Blackarmy- in DebateAnarchism

[–]Obersturm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

great men like adolf hitler

The regressive left! by -Blackarmy- in DebateAnarchism

[–]Obersturm -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Just wait fag we are ridding the coat tails of trump to push nationalism, it's only going to be a few years till we take over america

Which anarchist school of thought (or political ideology) would these beliefs be aligned to? by stepinshadows in DebateAnarchism

[–]Obersturm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

anti racism anti fascism

It's called being gay

Announcing the 2016 Sticky Series! Nominations and Proposals Inside by SpaceHeeder in DebateAnarchism

[–]TotesMessenger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

Announcing the 2016 Sticky Series! Nominations and Proposals Inside by SpaceHeeder in DebateAnarchism

[–]AlienatedOphelia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fact that I would disagree with certain ontological claims about your body does not invalidate this.

For me it does. People with your beliefs have done considerable tangible harm to trans women, an extremely vulnerable population, so I have zero interest in helping you "learn and grow" (I.e., giving you and your crypto-fascist kind more ammo in your horrid deluded little hate quest) in any way whatsoever.

And "not agreeing with ontological claims about [my] body" aside, insisting on calling all trans women "he" is fucking misogynist hate speech, period. Why would I want to engage with someone who doesn't even respect and contributes to the oppressive invalidation of the most fundamental component of my identity and embodied self.

I have nothing but bile for you.

Announcing the 2016 Sticky Series! Nominations and Proposals Inside by SpaceHeeder in DebateAnarchism

[–]theunterrified 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think knowing that you'll want to second this, anyway

Actually, I'm someone that is fairly competent at separating ideas from individuals, and judging them on their own merits. If you have views that are unorthodox, I'd like to hear them regardless of what they turn out to be. Curiosity and exploring different view points is a pretty essential part of learning and personal growth, I would say.

The fact that I would disagree with certain ontological claims about your body does not invalidate this.

So while you are free to hate me and spew bile my way, if you have something interesting to say, I'd still like to hear it.

Announcing the 2016 Sticky Series! Nominations and Proposals Inside by SpaceHeeder in DebateAnarchism

[–]AlienatedOphelia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No you don't. And I don't want you to. Read the second edit. I don't engage with anti-transsexual gender nihilist neo-radfem stealth-bigots. Gross.

Announcing the 2016 Sticky Series! Nominations and Proposals Inside by SpaceHeeder in DebateAnarchism

[–]AlienatedOphelia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! I'm glad there's interest. :) I've been waiting for some sort of platform to express my ideas for a while.

But while I'd like to, I guess a potential problem with that would be that I'm just some woman who thinks completely for myself and has strange unpopular radical ideas (hence the username) that run contrary to a lot of queer/transfeminist gender theory, not an established theorist.

I'd have to write a manifesto or something (which I've been working on, and meaning to get out there in some form, possibly through a zine, for a while, but life has been hell recently), so that people are aware of what my take on anarcha-feminism (which is flavored by a certain kind of explicitly gynocentric, pan-lesbian quasi-separatist difference feminism squarely in between third-wave postmodernist gender relativism/subjectivity and old second-wave radfem theories of biological essentialism) actually entails. Without any other way of knowing this, how would anyone ask meaningful questions about it? (Maybe I could write a basic overview in the text post, like what I just wrote, I guess?)

I feel like people would ask questions about anarcha-feminism wanting to know what the ideology mostly consists of in practice. I could still answer those questions as I'm fairly well-versed in canon anarcha-feminist texts, but...My take is unique to the point where a lot of feminists from other strains might actually consider some of my positions antifeminist, and I've been alienated from more "mainstream alternative" queer feminist communities for a while now, so...IDK.

EDIT: So, could this be considered an 'individual' thread? I'd definitely want to "speak for myself" but it isn't really about anything I'm accomplishing per se (unless you count formulating this theory). It's kind of in between ideology and individual.

As long as everyone realizes that it's just one person's synthesis of different anarchist and feminist ideologies after a period of intense reading and exploration, and that it is very much out of step with third-wave anarcha-feminism in many ways, I'd love to do one. Just nervous about being on the spot for anarcha-feminism is all. :)

Edit again: Ok, nevermind. Shit, after perusing your post history, it seems you're a transmisogynist, gender denialist/nihilist, and anti-transsexual, and have actually espoused hate speech against trans women, so no, fuck you. I'm a transsexual woman and a lot of my ideology is heavily influenced by that narrative, so I don't think knowing that you'll want to second this, anyway.

Making anarchism more accessible to liberals? by AlmightyDeku in DebateAnarchism

[–]monkyyy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey maybe you should make an argument after someone points out your not doing so.

Making anarchism more accessible to liberals? by AlmightyDeku in DebateAnarchism

[–]zahmah_kibo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct, which would be inevitable in anarcho-feudalismcapitalism

Donald Trump intends to turn atrocity into state policy if elected President. by jaybeleriand in DebateAnarchism

[–]Ruanito_666 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fascist just called me edgy. That's hilarious.

Donald Trump intends to turn atrocity into state policy if elected President. by jaybeleriand in DebateAnarchism

[–]nuesuh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i don't really care how a person that is "pro-trans" and has 666 in his name thinks of my internet comments.

You're really edgy mate. Disliking my comments and calling me and idiotic bootlicker.

Donald Trump intends to turn atrocity into state policy if elected President. by jaybeleriand in DebateAnarchism

[–]Ruanito_666 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whatever, bootlicker. If you want to make yourself look like an idiot I won't stop you.

Donald Trump intends to turn atrocity into state policy if elected President. by jaybeleriand in DebateAnarchism

[–]nuesuh -1 points0 points  (0 children)

i don't need a "right". I can do whatever the fuck I want. If i want to call cucks cucks, i'll call them a cuck.

Making anarchism more accessible to liberals? by AlmightyDeku in DebateAnarchism

[–]pathofraven -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

And what a surprise! A typical sneering and thoughtless reply, never would have seen that coming!

Making anarchism more accessible to liberals? by AlmightyDeku in DebateAnarchism

[–]zahmah_kibo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Typical anti-civ/post-left apathy.

Donald Trump intends to turn atrocity into state policy if elected President. by jaybeleriand in DebateAnarchism

[–]zahmah_kibo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, my favorite word is cuck. I am so devoid of personal accomplishments that I have to establish a strong sense of identity with people of the same skin color as me and use their achievements to fill the vacuum inside of me where normal people have a personality. My hobbies include jerking it to anime porn and whining about the dumb "dindus" next door on /pol/. Whenever people disagree with me, I call them "cuck" (if I'm in a good mood), or "nigger" (if I'm not in a good mood). In my free time I also enjoy designing dank may mays involving frogs, Trump, and caricatures of Muslims. My goal in life is to turn America into a safe space free of the shifty-eyed chinks, greedy ZOG merchants, drug fiend Latinos, and rapacious nig-nogs. Protecting the sanctity and purity of the white race, especially white women, is my highest calling.

And anyone who stands in the way is just a dumb cuck!

Donald Trump intends to turn atrocity into state policy if elected President. by jaybeleriand in DebateAnarchism

[–]zahmah_kibo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

your sexual insecurity is pathological

Making anarchism more accessible to liberals? by AlmightyDeku in DebateAnarchism

[–]IAMAVERYGOODPERSON 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the point of my question.

jesus christ you are slimey

The inability of the left to consider itself critically will always doom Anarchism to irrelevance. by [deleted] in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

FUCK YOU YOU CONSDCENDING SACK OF GARBAGE

WHY SHOULD ANYONE RESPECT YOU WHEN YOU SHOW NO ONE ANY RESPECT?

YOU'RE SUBHUMAN SCUM AND YOU DESERVE A BULLET IN YOUR FASCIST HEAD, YOU MISERABLE SACK OF DOGSHIT

The inability of the left to consider itself critically will always doom Anarchism to irrelevance. by [deleted] in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ALL I WANT IS THE RIGHT TO STAND TALL AND NOT BE SERVILE TO ANYONE, BUT SACK OF RODENT CRAP LIKE YOYU CAN TOLERATE THAT. NO, YOU FASCIST AUTHORITARIAN FUCKSTAINS NEED EVERYONE TO BOW DOWN AND KISS YOUR RING.

WELL FUCK YOU YOU STUPID, ARROGANT, CONDESCENDING FUCK! I WILL NEVER KNEEL BEFORE YOU! YOU ARE NOT MORE POWERFUL TGHAN ME, EVEN IF YOU DO HAVE A MOB AT YOUR BACK AND DO CONTROL EVERYTHING AROUND ME. I WILL NEVER BE A SLAVE TO SHIT LIKE YOU.

I WILL SHOOT YOU ALL BEFORE THAT HAPPENS. I WILL GO ON A FUCKING RAMPAGE AND MURDER TEN THOUSAND, TEN MILLION OF YOU FEMINIST SACKS OF GARBAGE BEFORE I WILL KNEEL TO ONE OF YOU.

YOU'RE SLIME! SUBHUMAN SCUMBAGS! IF YOU CAN'T RESPECT ME AS A HUMAN BEING, THEN I WILL NOT TREAT YOU AS HUMANS, I WILL TREAT YOU AS THE FASCISTS YOU ARE AND I WILL KILL YOU

YOU GOT THAT, YOU FEMINAZI FUCK? I WILL NEVER CAPITULATE TO YOUR BULLYING BULLSHIT. I WILL NEVER KNEEL AND KISS YOUR RING!

I WILL KILL ALL OF YOU BEFORE THAT HAPPENS, YOU MISERABLE SACK OF AUTHORITARIAN DOGSHIT!

The inability of the left to consider itself critically will always doom Anarchism to irrelevance. by [deleted] in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe I will shoot a feminist in the face. Just for you. Just for all the endless SHIT feminist fascist pieces of shit like you have inflicted on my life. I am so fucking sick of you authoritarian pieces of garbage, and I do own a gun,.

Keep pushing me, you sack of shit,. Keep throwing gasoline on that fire. When you and your feminazi fuckstain friends finally push me far enough, maybe you'll feel a bit guilty when I do snap and shoot up a rally of you fascist fucks. Maybe I'll get lucky and you'll be there.

But will it really matter? I could unload into a crowd of feminists without worrying about killing a single decent person, because you're ALL authoritarian FUCKS who deserve bullets.

JUST KEEP PUSHING, YOU FUCK. KEEP FUCKING PUSHING ME.

I'LL SHOW YOU A GODDAMN MELTDOWN, YOU FASCIST FUCKSTAIN!

The inability of the left to consider itself critically will always doom Anarchism to irrelevance. by [deleted] in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eat shit and die, you trolling piece of shit. You're scum. Worthless dogshit.

Eat a fucking bullet, you useless sack of dogshit.

The inability of the left to consider itself critically will always doom Anarchism to irrelevance. by [deleted] in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're a lying sack of dogshit.

The inability of the left to consider itself critically will always doom Anarchism to irrelevance. by [deleted] in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You just replied to ME you fucking retard.

Critiquing the anarchist left is not a straw man just because he says it is.

Look...I get it. You're a fucking idiot. You've missed the crux of this stupid little sub-argument. Protip: it's not about whether or not it's a strawman (and I wasn't the one who said it was initially), it's about whether or not the mischaracterization of a group can categorically be called a strawman.

He will ask questions and make demands that you provide him with information, but you need not answer them to continue the debate.

I see you're still butthurt that I asked you to provide evidence for your positive claim about a body of text. Your tears are delicious, retard.

He doesn't really even want to know the answer, but it is the fastest way for him to respond and try to continue the argument (not debate).

You doing all this pissing and moaning about debate is the zenith of irony. You couldn't debate your way out of a wet paper bag.

The inability of the left to consider itself critically will always doom Anarchism to irrelevance. by [deleted] in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Just ignore AnarchoDave, he doesn't even know the meaning of a straw man argument and in fact engages in them regularly if you look at his posts. Critiquing the anarchist left is not a straw man just because he says it is. Your point is valid and is one of the main ways post-left anarchists critique the left. A straw man argument would be if he could actually make an argument against that critique, and you attack another similar argument that he never put forth. He will ask questions and make demands that you provide him with information, but you need not answer them to continue the debate. He doesn't really even want to know the answer, but it is the fastest way for him to respond and try to continue the argument (not debate).

The inability of the left to consider itself critically will always doom Anarchism to irrelevance. by [deleted] in DebateAnarchism

[–]paulchoixqc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hahah, you're done arguing with me because you're either a simpleton or a child and you can't refute any of my points.

The inability of the left to consider itself critically will always doom Anarchism to irrelevance. by [deleted] in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You only think we're representative of that group because you've already made up your mind about the identity of that group, which you clearly know nothing about beyond your Internet browsing.

I'm done talking to you. I fucking hate people who use bullshit arguments like this. Such incredible fucking nonsense.

The inability of the left to consider itself critically will always doom Anarchism to irrelevance. by [deleted] in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a joke, dumbdumb.

The inability of the left to consider itself critically will always doom Anarchism to irrelevance. by [deleted] in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was frustrated and so I just quoted him saying he had a learning disability as replied "That explains a lot." So he banned me for "ableism."

He should have banned you for being retarded.

The other people responding to this post all think this post is a direct response to that event, but it's not.

Uh huh.

The reality is that I tend to get banned from leftist subreddits within 48 hours of joining them because I use critical thinking. I'm a natural contrarian, and I don't find circle-jerking and agreeing interesting. I want to question assumptions and consider multiple possibilities. That tends to make me anathema in leftist communities, where questioning the conventional wisdom is too often considered an intolerable offense.

lol

Or it's that you're a giant (unjustified) sock-sniffer.

The inability of the left to consider itself critically will always doom Anarchism to irrelevance. by [deleted] in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In my experience most anarchists are braindead leftists who are incapable of anything resembling critical thinking. Their class consciousness is completely shallow, and in actual practice is indistinguishable from class prejudice.

The inability of the left to consider itself critically will always doom Anarchism to irrelevance. by [deleted] in DebateAnarchism

[–]Cuddly_Wumpums 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Wah wah wah I got banned from an internet forum and therefore anarchism is an abject failure.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah. what i meant was to make my claim in a formal schema to prove that i'm asking you to prove a negative. my claim is that i asked you to show x, because x -> -(-x) what i did not say was that if you weren't able to prove it that means -(-x)-> (∃(x)). You can produce an invalid schemata of my claim to show why it is invalid or not sound.

Rawls clearly supports a consensus democracy with overlapping consensus in place of majority voting(which he explicitly states to be faulty and dangerous). Furthermore his state has a constitution which you have a moral duty to follow on the grounds that failure to follow it means imprisonment, even if the laws are unjust to a small degree. He also explicitly states that there needs to be a government to protect against the tyranny of the majority, and to ensure the freedom of speech. Furthermore he thinks that the government needs institutions to protect against certain types of clear and present danger in political speech(see the chapter in political liberalism). The liberties of the ancients was the term that Rawls used to describe direct democracy(he mentions the term in the intro for political liberalism p5). This is a term from Constant that contrasts the modern form of representative democracy with the direct participatory system in ancient athens(his book on the subject starts the distinctions at about page 300-330 depending on the edition)

Rawls states about what conceptions of liberalism his political liberalism opposes, he considers classical republicanism to not necessarily be in opposition and then goes on: But with civic humanism, as I understand it, there is indeed fundamental opposition. For as a form of Aristotelianism, it is sometimes stated as the view that man is a social, even a political, animal whose essential nature is most fully realized in a democratic society in which there is widespread and vigorous participation in political life. Participation is not encouraged as necessary for the protection of the basic liberties of democratic citizenship, and as in itself one form of good among others, however important for many persons. Rather, taking part in democratic politics is seen as the privileged locus of the good life. It is a return to giving a central place to what Constant called the "liberties of the ancients" and has all the defects of that. (p206)

By civic humanism he means the direct participation of the public in the political system. as seen in footnote 38 of the same chapter:

So understood, a form of civic humanism is powerfully if pessimistically expressed by Hannah Arendt (and, she thinks, the ancient Greeks), who holds that freedom and worldliness, best realized in politics, are the only values that redeem human life from the endless round of nature and make it worth living.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

why dont you prove it formally? i know that you can do this since you are better at logic than me.

I literally just explained why that's not possible...ya fuckin' retard.

You (on the other hand) could trivially prove your claim with a single quote. You won't (of course) because you're a dishonest idiot.

Perhaps you should just read rawls instead of making up cases of logical fallacies.

lol

I've actually read Rawls. Nothing in anything I ever read indicated an aversion to direct democracy. There might be some vague claims to the contrary (in fact), but I'm not going to bother advancing those to someone who's intellectually dishonest. I'm already wasting my time talking to someone as fucking dumb as you.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

why dont you prove it formally? i know that you can do this since you are better at logic than me. Perhaps you should just read rawls instead of making up cases of logical fallacies.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol

Uh huh.

Whatever you say, retard.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's how rational debate works.

i dont agree on that premise, therefore you are irrational

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not a premise of an argument. That's how rational debate works. If you don't agree with that, there is no argument to make in the first place because I'm talking to an irrational person (but that much was obvious).

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. You're not. I get it. You're retarded so your reading comprehension is terrible. Go back and re-read this thread as many times as it takes for someone like you to grasp it. Good luck, retard.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No. In the context of an argument the only premises you don't have to support are those on which you have mutual agreement

I dont agree on that premise therefore your argument is invalid(by your claim)

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nah, im asking you to prove the existence of something within a text. You're even starting to make up what i've argued. Thats called the strawman fallacy

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol

No. In the context of an argument the only premises you don't have to support are those on which you have mutual agreement. Constantly predicated your arguments on premises you know (or at least ought to know if you're not a fucking moron) that the other side doesn't agree to just so that they have to pull your fucking teeth out to get you to even state them explicitly (much less actually make the argument for them) is the behavior of a retarded person. You're retarded.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol

This isn't any of those contexts. You're asking me to prove the nonexistence of something within a body of text. I can't like...do that by induction. Should I go sentence by sentence through everything Rawls ever wrote asserting that "nope, that's not it either!" and then ALSO have some claim that there's nothing else he ever wrote? Seriously dude, you're a fucking retard.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

also here is an article that shows you that 'you can't prove a negative' is false.

Here is another

A common saying in pseudologic is "You can't prove a negative." That saying is not true. An absence of something can be proved in various ways, e.g., by a reductio ad absurdum or by proving something else that is inconsistent with the presence of that something (a very useful approach known in mathematics as proof by contradiction[wp]). For example, in law, a party may have the burden of proving nonreceipt of certain correspondence and may bear that burden of proof (at least by a preponderance of the evidence) by introducing into evidence a docket record in which the correspondence would have been noted. In mathematics, there are plenty of proofs of negative propositions, such as "there is no largest prime number"[1] or "there is no rational square root of 2".[2] One might also note that the saying itself is a negative.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes it certainly is okay to do what you think is begging the question. In fact any sound schema will have at least one premise which is unfounded. This is how discussion is done. That you fail to see this shows that you don't have a very good understanding of the laws of logic. Or even what logic is.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol

Let me ask you this: outside of this semantic argument do you think that what I'm calling begging the question is a fucking stupid way to conduct yourself in the context of an argument? Because you absolutely DID do what I'm accusing you of (over and over and over).

somehow my whole education has failed me and my top grades in both epistemology and logic were wrong because i know that the great wizard of pretending to be smart told me so.

lol

You should ask for your money back.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yep im imagining all the things i know such as aristotle being the source of the phrase begging the question when he referred to the usage of tautology. But you are much smarter than me , also you know more logic than me. I know this because you said so. Im not sure how you know that. You do seem inable of understanding the nature of fallacies. But rather you assume what those fallacies are by their names nevermind that none of them applies. somehow my whole education has failed me and my top grades in both epistemology and logic were wrong because i know that the great wizard of pretending to be smart told me so.

Damn im gonna sleep good.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol

Whatever helps you sleep at night, dumbdumb.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You can make up definitions all you want. like you have been doing all along.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes im so fucking dumb for knowing shit about logic that you dont.

There is literally nothing you know about logic that I don't.

If you are mistaken then other people are seriously retarded.

I'm not mistaken, dipshit. Begging the question is a more general error where in establishing your conclusion you assert a premise which, itself, needs to be established (and isn't). Circular reasoning is a special case of that error (which is why you see the two things conflated) but that's not strictly accurate (it's just close enough for morons like you).

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes im so fucking dumb for knowing shit about logic that you dont. If you are mistaken then other people are seriously retarded. Wow what a great intelect you are displaying. I wont try again you can just read the link you posted yourself. Not that youll understand it.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again the act of asking someone to prove a negative is not a fallacy unless one implies that that the negative proves the positive.

lolwut

Would you like to try that again in English?

(Also you website states that begging the question is circular reasoning.) [https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging_the_Question]

Yeah that's nice. A lot of people are dumb in the same way that you are about it. It still means what I said.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes its a website of logical fallacies. But it does not state what you think it states. Again the act of asking someone to prove a negative is not a fallacy unless one implies that that the negative proves the positive.you should read the actual page

(Also you website states that begging the question is circular reasoning.) [https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging_the_Question]

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So your link does not say that it is faulty to ask someone to prove a negative.

lol

Holy fuck, dude. It's a website of logical fallacies. Look at the fucking URL. Either you're completely fucking retarded or you're just willing to say anything to "win." Which is it?

I simply asserted that you were not able to back up your claim.

lol

You've managed to completely flip around what actually happened. Your reading comprehension is just terrible.

begging the question is a logical fallacy that implies use of tautology. Your version of the definition is not the definition used in logic, but a misconception of the concept which stems from pseudo-intellectualism. Which you are guilty of.

No dumbdumb. My use is the real use. Begging the question is an informal logical fallacy that's distinct from circular reasoning. It means what I said and you're definitely guilty of it. You're an idiot.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So your link does not say that it is faulty to ask someone to prove a negative. It rather states quite correctly that it is wrong to say that because someone cannot prove a negative, means the positive is true. Which is not what you claimed:-) so in this case i asked you to prove x if x then ÷y but if you cant prove x you cant prove ÷y. I simply asserted that you were not able to back up your claim. which is a very different thing. so quit bullshitting with links that proves how hopelessly bad you are at logical thought.

begging the question is a logical fallacy that implies use of tautology. Your version of the definition is not the definition used in logic, but a misconception of the concept which stems from pseudo-intellectualism. Which you are guilty of.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I sure as fuck flipped out writing all those statements in caps locks. Oh that was you.

lol

You should look into the order of events.

Show me that it is a logicalfallacy to ask someone to prove a negative.

Here you go, dumbass:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving_Non_Existence

Please show me where I was begging the question.

Every single place you flatly asserted something retarded based on an unstated premise that it should have been perfectly obvious (from the context of the conversation) I wouldn't agree with.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hahaha. Nice personal attacks. I sure as fuck flipped out writing all those statements in caps locks. Oh that was you.

Please now. Show me that it is a logicalfallacy to ask someone to prove a negative. You can't because you don't even know what that means. And I see you again use a term you don't know 'begging the question'. Hahaha this is so rich. You keep using words you don't know. Please show me where I was begging the question.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great comeback dave who is so dense that he doesn't even understand logic.

lol

I definitely have a better grasp of logic than you do.

I didn't even ask for you to prove a negative.

Yeah you did, dumbdumb.

Also you did the same by making up the term 'straw examples' previously.

Speaking of straws, how's that grasping going for you?

Perhaps you should stop pretending to not be borderline delusional about your own intelligence.

Perhaps you should like...learn how to construct a coherent argument that doesn't rely on you trying to pick some particular nit without actually making an argument about its relevance. Better yet: figure out how to argue without constantly begging the question and then flipping the fuck out when people ask for evidence.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Great comeback dave who is so dense that he doesn't even understand logic. I didn't even ask for you to prove a negative. Which is pretty funny as your ignorance caused you to just blurt out a term to try to sound smart. Also you did the same by making up the term 'straw examples' previously. Perhaps you should stop pretending to not be borderline delusional about your own intelligence.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The results stated that claims of not being able to prove a negative is pseudo logic.

lol

Uh huh.

That's some good googlin' you did there.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I Google the term because I thought I must have misunderstood it. The results stated that claims of not being able to prove a negative is pseudo logic. So if you don't mind please show me that it is impossible to prove a negative. This just points to your lack of knowledge. No wonder you know nothing about the texts you have referred to.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is it wrong to prove a negative?

LOL

Nevermind. I give up on you.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why is it wrong to prove a negative? Your use of this term shows that you don't know anything about rational discourse. You simply pull shit out of Wikipedia that you don't understand.

Please show me the quotes

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I watered that bullshit down?

Yes. You absolutely did. Do I have to show you the two quotes side by side and walk you through step-by-step how they're not even remotely the same claim? Yes. You definitely did water down your claim.

You stated that prop 8 that was passed by a majority was not a case of the tyranny of the majority.

Actually what I attacked was the first part of your claim. Since you're a fucking idiot though you just ignored that part and kept on running.

When it comes to Raws you should certainly be able to show just ONE instance to prove me wrong.

One instance of what, exactly? Again: you're asking me to prove a negative.

If the whole elective population had participated there is no reason to believe that the outcome would have been different.

There is also no reason to believe that it wouldn't have been different. That has to do with WHY they didn't participate. Moreover (again) this whole argument is retarded right from the start because of the non-uniqueness problem you just keep ducking. Even if I were to grant you this argument you've decided you can just hang your claim on, NOTHING ELSE THAT YOU THINK FOLLOWS FROM IT ACTUALLY DOES.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hahaha I watered that bullshit down? You're giving me examples of people who states that your true direct democracy is in fact neither achievable nor desirable. When it comes to Raws you should certainly be able to show just ONE instance to prove me wrong. But I take it that you've not really read rawls and much less understood him.

You stated that prop 8 that was passed by a majority was not a case of the tyranny of the majority. It simply makes no sense. If the whole elective population had participated there is no reason to believe that the outcome would have been different.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please you're the one who demanded proof.

RIGHT. BECAUSE YOU MADE A FUCKING CLAIM ABOUT "ACADEMIA" AND AS SOON AS YOU WERE ASKED FOR EVIDENCE YOU WATERED THAT STUPID BULLSHIT DOWN INSTANTLY.

Show me where raws does not believe in the importance of representative institutions?

Yeah I'll get right on proving that negative. CHRIST.

I know what you meant by 40% but your point was idiotic as I tries to show you

Why was it idiotic? Come on. "Tries" to show me again. Give me your best shot.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Now I'm retarded? Please you're the one who demanded proof. Show me where raws does not believe in the importance of representative institutions? You're merely pretending to have a clue. I know what you meant by 40% but your point was idiotic as I tries to show you. Please now. Give me some real examples Mr 'not retarded'

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Heres your arguments: I dont believe you, lol, and lolwut. You sure are a decent debater.

You make ludicrous assertions of fact without any substantiating evidence. Am I obligated to do more work than you?

I was mistaken, proposition 8 was passed 52 to 47 percent, still a majority.

Sigh...

Go back and re-read what I said. Look at where the 40% number came from.

Good job on providing me with some contemporary sources. I mean besides the fact that everyone of your examples are dead people...

Oh my GOD...

Something is fucking wrong with you.

In any case, it was a pretty fucking retarded argument in the first place and then you shifted the goal posts away from "academia" so I wasn't really interested in trying to seriously respond to you.

What is your gripe with Rawls? He clearly believes the institution as a way of best representing the individual.

You can use the word "clearly" all you want. It's not actually true.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Heres your arguments: I dont believe you, lol, and lolwut. You sure are a decent debater.

I was mistaken, proposition 8 was passed 52 to 47 percent, still a majority.

Good job on providing me with some contemporary sources. I mean besides the fact that everyone of your examples are dead people...

What is your gripe with Rawls? He clearly believes the institution as a way of best representing the individual.

I see a lot of subjective arguing and not a lot of proof.

I also see, that the three examples are the same examples given by wikipedia on the link to direct democracy. However, the statement is that these thinkers were inspired by the thought, which is very different from saying that direct democracy is the answer. Arendt had a very different theory called council democracy but the councils would be representative. So again Arendt does not seriously discuss true direct democracy.

Castoriadis thought that true direct democracy could work at a local level, but not without electives higher up. These councils( at the local level) are described as representative. There would even still be a state.

Pierre Clastres. Described the primitives society too as having a leader or chief that spoke on behalf of the community with some leadership vested on him. The tribes would need to be very small. And such cultures were vulnerable to subversion. While Clastres critiqued the governments at his time. He never claimed that true direct democracy was the answer. He infact praises Hobbes for realising that war ensures unification and describes the primitive society as using war and ancestral laws to unify. That does not really sound democratic, does it? And woops, he even stipulates the inherent warrior class as a class above the others in a hierarchy-like fashion. While he may have said that there was no conflict inside his societies, he certainly attributed an almost continuous state of war outwards between tribes. Also he has obviously been disproved time and again for romanticizing the state of primitive societies. A great man in anthropology. But his arguments are not very good.

You think this is getting exhausting? you have barely pulled out some Wikipedia statements from your ass. none of those people you listed believes that true direct democracy is both achievable and desirable. But please try again, give me some true examples and this time make sure that you understand their writings not just recite some examples you found on google that are not even examples of what you seek.

Perhaps you should read some yourself? You have proved yourself to say mostly nothing with substance.

Representative Democracy as a sample size of direct democracy. by Leodhas in DebateAnarchism

[–]AnarchoDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't think 60 over 40% counts as a decisive majority? Please enlighten me which arbitrary limit you have found that must be reached.

It's not 60 over 40 though. You have it backwards.

If we had to reach consensus then the majority might still hold the minority hostage indefinitely if the law is never able to pass. There is no reason to think that if the turnout was 100% or postponed a few days(Your talk of crisis and holidays is irrelevant in this case because more than 80% were aware of the proposition, its not like it slipped by silently).

Sigh...

I wasn't claiming that it was slipped by silently. That has nothing to do with it. This is exhausting.

If you think that the population was to easily manipulated, that just shows you how hopeless direct democracies would be in practice.

Except that the problem is WORSE in representative democracy so that argument makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

The term of the tyranny of majority is one of the oldest political terms we have, stemming from a critique of direct democracy i think that ought to tell you something.

It tells me that political elites have been trying to peddle bullshit forever.

Do you believe that Athenian democracy worked?

Sort of? It's a pretty shitty example (given the way they limited participation).

In regards to the beliefs in academia, i can assure you...

Your assurances mean literally nothing. Sorry but I don't fucking believe you. I don't think you have any ACTUAL evidence for this claim. Feel free to prove me wrong.

My source is simply that i cannot think of one contemporary renowned academic that believes in direct democracy as a viable option

lol

Ok. Try reading some more, bro.

Rawls

lolwut

I think this conversation is over.

Now please, i assume that since you do not believe me you can provide some recognized people withing academia that believes true direct democracy to be both achievable and desirable.

Two seconds of googling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Castoriadis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Clastres

Market Coercion by Orsonius in DebateAnarchism

[–]LowReady 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I feel like playing Xbox but I've had too much code red mountain dew and I am quickly forced to either stop playing or sit in piss is my bladder coercing me?

Anarchism and art? by Hans_Jaeger in DebateAnarchism

[–]RexAnglorumSaxonum -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

So this is art because of the way it "made people like you feel..."?

Truly this interpretation of what constitutes art will make the world a better place.

How does anarchists want to solve the refugee crisis? by Joakim2000 in DebateAnarchism

[–]Kyras_Edelweiss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How does Grammar?

Anarcho-Capitalists: What makes your system different from Feudalism, or different from a sort of Mafia-esque control? by IdeologyInquirer in DebateAnarchism

[–]LOST_TALE 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good then find your own word. You aren't an anarchist.

I'm afraid Latin was first to the party. Anarchy= without rulers Leftarchists= producer hating parasites

Anarcho-Capitalists: What makes your system different from Feudalism, or different from a sort of Mafia-esque control? by IdeologyInquirer in DebateAnarchism

[–]TotesMessenger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

An Anarchist Society would be Poor, Crime Prone, and not Guarantee Survival by bearsareawesome1999 in DebateAnarchism

[–]Ohmygoditsabird 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everybody including yourself is sprouting utter horse shit when they talk about politics so why are you surprised and why are you implying otherwise?

reddit gold

In Summation

Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

By purchasing Reddit Gold, you agree to the Reddit User Agreement.

  • make my gift anonymous
  • include a message

Please select a payment method.

Give gold often? Consider buying creddits to use, they're 40% cheaper if purchased in a set of 12.

Would you like to learn more about giving gold?